(Not) trusting the judiciary to do its job
On a small island with limited resources, where everyone is either related or knows each other through a friend or a friend’s friend, finding decent systems of checks, balances and impartiality was always going to be a challenge.
However, as usual, we haven’t really helped ourselves in the process. I think I was in my early teens when I first learnt that the selection process for the judiciary in Malta had been entirely in the hands of the executive for decades. This selection method finally changed after a scalding report by the Venice Commission, and the constitution was amended so that an appointments committee would be in charge of putting forward possible candidates’ names to the President of Malta.
Having seen so many other institutions work (or not work) in this country, I have often wondered how ripe this system might be for abuse; however, nothing made me more uncomfortable than the prime minister’s recent comment about the judiciary, where he stated that the judiciary should not engage in “political terrorism” through the Vitals magisterial inquiry.
Speaking to reporters who asked him to clarify his comment just a few days ago, Abela appeared to question whether the magistrate in charge of the inquiry may or may not have purposely chosen the start of the election campaign to conclude the inquiry. He also added that he was duty-bound to ensure that the judiciary not be used in a way that “influences
wasnd political timelines”.
To be honest, the whole exchange hard to watch and very concerning.
The prime minister is, first and foremost, a lawyer; he knows the legal system and was in and out of the courts for years before he became head of the executive. We are not talking about some random man in the street making comments to his closest friends at the village band club about his most cherished conspiracy theories; we are talking about a man who, undoubtedly, understands the weight and the gravitas of undermining the institution that offers us our only means of justice in a democracy.
Comments like these cast long shadows on the courts, and these shadows are not easily dispelled or dismissed in the very uninformed public’s mind. They also serve to distract from why the inquiry was carried out in the first place: an inquiry which, I imagine, is a great source of discomfort for the party in power.
It seems bitterly ironic that the most significant thorn in the prime minister’s side for the past four years has always been his predecessor’s alleged antics but why shake the public’s confidence in the rule of law for a situation that you didn’t have anything to do with?
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to let justice take its course? How can any floating voter not look at the prime minister’s musings and not be cynical and deeply worried?
This constant scapegoating of those trying to do their jobs has already proven dangerous, yet, it keeps going on. Why is it always the person lamenting or judging the action on trial who’s the problem but never the action or the accused?
It really makes you wonder where the “political terrorism” lies after all.
“How can any floating voter not look at the prime minister’s musings and not be cynical and deeply worried?